Doors On-Line v. Chandra
Citations
- 218 N.E.3d 226
- 2023 Ohio 2018
Syllabus
PERSONAL JURISDICTION MINIMUM CONTACTS SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. The trial court erred by concluding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant failed to establish that the defendant-appellant had the necessary minimum contacts with Ohio.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that when the movant “seek[s] to extend the constitutional guarantees to new territory[,] . . . it does suggest that the key premise of a preliminary injunction—likelihood of success on the merits—is missing”
- banning sex-organ surgeries and puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Zimmerman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.